' This writ petition calls in question the order dated 1-11-2003 passed by Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan/respondent No,2 whereby petitioner's application for permission to produce certain documents at a late stage without either having been annexed with the written statement nor relied upon, was rejected by the respondent No,2. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order of learned Civil Judge before the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 14-4-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan/respondent No,
1. The respondents Nos.1. And 2 both disallowed petitioner's application on the ground that proposed documents were not produced or relied upon at the earlier stage although these documents were in possession of the petitioner from the start and as such no cause was shown by the petitioner. The learned respondent No,1 also took the view that as the impugned order does not fall within ambit of "case decided" within meaning of section 115, C.P.C., hence the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these documents were part of public record and there is no likelihood of their being fabricated one and the mere delay is no ground for refusing permission to produce these documents, if these documents are essential for proper decision of the suit and if these documents advance the cause of real justice, same should not be disallowed merely on the technical ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the case of Umar Hayat v. Naik Alam PLD 1977 AJ&K 78 has argued that mere delay is not sufficient ground for disallowing the production df these documents at later stage because Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C. Confers wide powers on the Court to allow production of documents at a later stage, though not produced at first hearing. Finally, relying upon PLD 1993 Lah. 774, the learned counsel contends that the respondent No,1 was not justified in dismissing petitioner's application on the ground that impugned order does not fall within purview of "case decided" and as such learned counsel argued that revision petition was competent.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2.
4. The fact remains that the petitioner failed to produce the A proposed documents at an earlier stage or they omitted to mention those documents in the list of reliance, may be a reason for disallowing the documents but the same only cannot be a ground sufficient within meaning of Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C., which confers wide jurisdiction on the Court to allow production of documents at a later stage, provided these documents are essential for the just decision of the case and also these documents are absolutely free from any suspicion of being fabricated. The Honourable High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the above mentioned judgment after surveying the case on the subject and analyzing the implication of Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C., held that the Court while allowing or disallowing production of documents at a later stage should not merely bank upon the fact that prayer was made at a later stage because Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C. Being a procedural law, same should receive most liberal construction so as to advance the cause of real justice as compared to technical justice. While allowing or disallowing documents at late stage the Court should not be merely guided by the principle of early disposal of the case, rather the Court should lean in favour of allowing production of such documents because withholding the same may lead to failure of justice. As rightly held in the above-reported judgment, in case of any default on the part of the party having not produced the proposed documents at earlier stage, such a party can be burdened with reasonable costs to compensate the opposite party as also by way of punishment for his negligence. Respectfully following the dictum laid down in the above mentioned judgment of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which is perhaps the only judgment in Pakistan on the interpretation of Order XIII, rule 2, C.P.C. I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, both the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is allowed to produce the proposed documents on payment of Rs,2,000 as costs. It is made clear that payment of costs shall be condition precedent for the production of proposed documents, failing which this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.